`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`BUFFALO DIVISION
`
`Glenn Coe, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`1:22-cv-00430
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`- against -
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`The Coca-Cola Company,
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief, except for allegations pertaining to Plaintiff,
`
`which are based on personal knowledge:
`
`1.
`
`The Coca-Cola Company (“Defendant”) manufactures, markets, labels and sells
`
`beverages which contain alphanumeric codes printed inside bottle caps that allow participation in
`
`its rewards program it manages to redeem these codes.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 2 of 17
`
`I.
`
`REWARD PROGRAMS
`
`2.
`
`Companies utilize reward or loyalty programs to encourage customers to purchase
`
`their products or services through brand loyalty and lock-in effects.
`
`3.
`
`These programs are similar to discount programs, because the customer becomes
`
`eligible to receive the discount after a certain number of purchases are made.
`
`4. At least three-quarters of consumers consider a rewards program a significant factor
`
`in deciding on how to spend their money.
`
`5.
`
`Consumers understand a reward similar to its dictionary definition, as “something
`
`that is given in return for good or evil done or received or that is offered or given for some service
`
`or attainment.”
`
`II. COKE REWARDS PROGRAM
`
`6.
`
`The Coke Rewards program began by offering customers the ability to redeem bottle
`
`caps and other proofs of purchase for things of value, such as movie tickets or gift cards.
`
`7.
`
`Several years later, the Program was modified to eliminate or reduce the frequency
`
`of prizes and replaced with the ability to participate in raffles and contests.
`
`8. A more recent update to the Rewards program answers common customer questions,
`
`such as, “How do I earn rewards?:”
`
`There are a variety of ways to get rewarded for
`drinking your favorite beverages from The Coca-
`Cola Company®. Each available offer on the
`Rewards page will have
`its own method of
`participation. When you find an offer you’re
`interested in, follow the instructions on the banner to
`get started.
`
`9. However, the Rewards Program no longer provides any things of value to customers,
`
`even though it is still described prominently as a Rewards program.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 3 of 17
`
`10.
`
` Instead, customers are only able to donate their accumulated rewards to pre-selected
`
`charities, such as the American Red Cross.
`
`
`
`11. While Americans have one of the highest personal charitable donation rates in the
`
`world, this is based on their own generosity and ability to choose the organizations they support.
`
`III. COKE REWARDS ARE UNLAWFUL “TRADING STAMPS”
`
`12. Defendant continues to sell Coke products with reward codes, even though the only
`
`benefit is to donate their accumulated value to one of its selected non-profit groups.
`
`13. The alphanumeric codes imprinted on the caps and cases are a modern form of a
`
`“Trading stamp,” defined as “any stamp or similar device issued in connection with the retail sale
`
`of merchandise or service, as a cash discount or for any other marketing purpose, which entitles
`
`the rightful holder, on its due presentation for redemption, to receive merchandise, service or cash.”
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 4 of 17
`
`GBL § 570(1).
`
`14. Trading stamps were an early form of a loyalty or rewards program, and were small
`
`paper stamps issued to customers by manufacturers and/or merchants.
`
`15. The State Legislature recognized the economic and societal harms caused by trading
`
`stamps, and enacted laws to regulate their use.
`
`16. Violation of these laws is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $500. GBL § 579(1).
`
`17.
`
`In establishing requirements for trading stamps, the State recognized that trading
`
`stamps (1) encourage customers to make purchases they otherwise might not make, (2) increase
`
`prices because the price of the product was raised by the cost of the stamp, (3) prevent price
`
`comparison, (4) are subject to high rates of non-redemption, and (5) are subject to frequent
`
`program changes which eliminates or significantly reduces the value accumulated by customers.
`
`18. Similar to trading stamps, the Coke reward codes have minimal cash value of a few
`
`mils (thousandths of a dollar) individually.
`
`19. When a customer accumulated a number of them, they could be exchanged with a
`
`trading stamp company for discounts or premiums, such as toys, personal items, housewares,
`
`furniture and appliances.
`
`20. Defendant’s Rewards are marketed contrary to state law, because they do not have
`
`“legibly printed upon [their] face a cash value determined by the company in cents or any fraction
`
`thereof,” which meant Plaintiff and other holders were not able to “redeem the stamps in cash
`
`when duly presented to the company for redemption in a number having an aggregate cash value
`
`of not less than one dollar.” GBL § 571(1)-(2).
`
`21. This requirement was designed to prevent customers, like Plaintiff, from being left
`
`without any value in the event of their accumulation of non-redeemable reward codes.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 5 of 17
`
`22. Trading stamp programs, such as Defendant’s Rewards program, are required to be
`
`registered with the Secretary of State, to facilitate review samples of its reward codes prior to
`
`offering them to customers. GBL § 572.
`
`23. Upon information and belief, the Secretary of State did not review and approve
`
`Defendant’s Rewards program.
`
`24. Defendant failed to file the required security or bond with the State, the purpose of
`
`which is to ensure that holders of the reward codes, like Plaintiff, could successfully redeem them
`
`in the precise situation which occurred – the modification of the program to the detriment of
`
`Plaintiff and the general public. GBL § 575(1)-(2).
`
`25. Defendant’s gradual suspension and elimination of any tangible rewards from its
`
`program was not carried out in accordance with the statutory requirement that it provide at least
`
`90 days’ notice to the Secretary of State and its retail partners. GBL § 577.
`
`26. By suspending and restricting the redemption of the trading stamps, Plaintiff and
`
`consumers are authorized and intend to submit their claims against any security or bond posted by
`
`Defendant for the value of their reward codes. GBL § 576(1).
`
`IV. DISSATISFCATION WITH REWARDS PROGRAM
`
`27. Online forums are replete with customers who have accumulated reward codes
`
`whose value was eliminated in violation of their statutory protections, and who continue to
`
`accumulate reward codes even though they no longer have any tangible value.
`
`28. The independent customer review website, Site Jabber, contains the testimony of
`
`hundreds of Rewards program participants, who expressed the same dissatisfaction experienced
`
`by Plaintiff.1
`
`
`1 https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/mycokerewards.com.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 6 of 17
`
`29. One participant stated:
`
`to earn reward
`[I]nstead of redeeming codes
`products, You are expected to spends hours entering
`your codes as a donation. You’d think Coke would
`just make the donation themselves instead of making
`us waste time to donate a few cents.
`
`30. Another participant wrote:
`
`You get nothing for your input time Waste of time.
`If I put the time into saving the codes and then
`entering I should get something, not get chance at
`getting something.
`
`I just knew when they announced this “new and
`improved” program that we were going to get
`$crewed. I have probably 200-300 bottle caps and at
`least 100 codes from 12 packs that I will probably
`just end up tossing away.
`
`31. A reviewer identified only as “Kellie S.” declared:
`
`I refuse to waste my time scanning them for a charity
`which will probably never see a cent. I played a
`couple of the raffles. Maxed out the codes every day
`for the entire window the game was open and didn't
`win a thing…This is worse than having no program.
`
`32. While the participant under the name of “Sarah O.” did not object to supporting
`
`charitable organizations, the Rewards program was “incredibly disappoint[ing] to her because it:
`
`[No] longer reward[s] their customers. Rather if you
`want to enter your codes you are forced to donate
`your rewards. To me it is a slap in the face as a
`customer. It seems to validate the “disposable”
`attitude in the world today.
`
`33. While the monetary value of the reward codes was always low, many participants
`
`relied on these small benefits, such as a five dollar gift card to Dunkin’ Donuts, to help their
`
`families scrape by.
`
`34. Customers like Plaintiff and “DeeDee J.” still possess “hundreds of coded caps”
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 7 of 17
`
`which are no longer redeemable, even though this is required by state law.
`
`35. “DeeDee J.” acknowledged that Defendant is “not obligated to offer us [customers]
`
`anything,” but by describing the program as offering “Rewards” misled her, as it did Plaintiff.
`
`V.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`36. Defendant makes other representations and omissions with respect to the Rewards
`
`Program which are unlawful, false and misleading.
`
`37. Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly and lawfully
`
`market and describe the components, attributes, and features of a rewards program, relative to
`
`itself and other comparable programs or alternatives.
`
`38. The value of the Products to participate in the Rewards Program that Plaintiff
`
`purchased were materially less than the value as represented by Defendant.
`
`39. Defendant sold more of the Products to participate in the Rewards Program and at
`
`higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits
`
`at the expense of consumers.
`
`40. Had Plaintiff known the truth, he would not have participated in the Program or
`
`would have done so on different terms.
`
`41. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Rewards Program causes
`
`consumers to spend more money buying Coke products to obtain rewards, despite the absence of
`
`any rewards and/or the absence of any redeemable cash value, over other similar products which
`
`are supported by rewards programs that provide tangible rewards and/or cash value.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`42.
`
`Jurisdiction is pursuant to Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1332(d)(2).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 8 of 17
`
`43. The aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, including any statutory
`
`damages, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`44. Plaintiff Glenn Coe is a citizen of New York.
`
`45. Defendant The Coca-Cola Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
`
`of business in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia.
`
`46. The class of persons Plaintiff seeks to represent includes persons who are citizens of
`
`different states from which Defendant is a citizen.
`
`47. The Program has been active for over 10 years, with tens of thousands of participants,
`
`who purchased Coke products at thousands of locations in the states covered by the classes Plaintiff
`
`seeks to represent.
`
`48. Venue is in the Buffalo Division in this District because a substantial part of the
`
`events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in Erie County, including Plaintiff’s
`
`purchases, consumption, transactions and/or use of the Rewards Program and awareness and/or
`
`experiences of and with the issues described here.
`
`Parties
`
`49. Plaintiff Glenn Coe is a citizen of Orchard Park, Erie County, New York.
`
`50. Defendant The Coca-Cola Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
`
`of business in Atlanta, Georgia, Fulton County.
`
`51. Defendant’s registered agent in Delaware is The Corporation Trust Company.
`
`52. Defendant is the largest carbonated beverage seller in the world based on its flagship
`
`product, Coca-Cola (“Coke”).
`
`53. The Coke brand is synonymous with quality with high levels of brand loyalty.
`
`54. This loyalty was shown when “New Coke” was released during the 1980s, and
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 9 of 17
`
`customers reacted negatively to its taste, which resulted in the re-introduction of the original Coke
`
`formula.
`
`55. Situations like those have shown the public, including Plaintiff, that Defendant will
`
`offer customer-friendly programs, represented truthfully.
`
`56. Plaintiff purchased the Coke Products at locations including grocery stores and,
`
`convenience stores, between 2016 through the present, among other times.
`
`57. Plaintiff participated in the Rewards Programs from no later than 2016 through the
`
`present.
`
`58. Following Defendant’s most recent modification of its Rewards Program, Plaintiff’s
`
`accumulated reward codes became non-redeemable, because the only option was to apply them in
`
`support of the non-profit organizations Defendant selected, instead of providing him anything of
`
`value.
`
`59. Plaintiff believed and expected a program described with the term, “Rewards,”
`
`would provide a thing of value, and that the Program was operated in compliance with this State’s
`
`laws, which are intended to prevent customers from ending up with significant quantities of non-
`
`redeemable reward codes with no value
`
`60. Plaintiff relied on the words, terms coloring, descriptions, layout, placement,
`
`packaging, hang tags, and/or images on the Products and descriptions of the Rewards Program, on
`
`the labeling, statements, omissions, claims, statements, and instructions, made by Defendant or at
`
`its directions, in digital, print and/or social media, which accompanied the Product and separately,
`
`through in-store, digital, audio, and print marketing.
`
`61. Plaintiff bought the Products to participate in the Rewards Program at or exceeding
`
`the above-referenced price.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 10 of 17
`
`62. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products to participate in the Rewards
`
`Program and would not have done so on the same terms if he knew the representations and
`
`omissions were false and misleading or would have paid less for them.
`
`63. Plaintiff chose between Defendant’s Products and products represented similarly, but
`
`which did not misrepresent their attributes, requirements, instructions, features, and/or
`
`components, such as rewards programs which provided tangible rewards and operated in a manner
`
`consistent with State law.
`
`64. The Products to participate in the Rewards Program were worth less than what
`
`Plaintiff paid and he would not have paid as much absent Defendant's false and misleading
`
`statements and omissions.
`
`65. Plaintiff intends to, seeks to, and will purchase the Products to participate in the
`
`Rewards Program again when he can do so with the assurance the representations about the
`
`Rewards Program are consistent with its abilities, attributes, features and/or composition.
`
`66. Plaintiff is unable to rely on the labeling and representations not only of these
`
`Products and their accompanying Rewards Program, but other similar carbonated beverage brands
`
`with reward programs, because he is unsure whether those representations are truthful.
`
`Class Allegations
`
`67. Plaintiff seeks certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of the following classes:
`
`New York Class: All persons in the State of New
`York who purchased the Product during the statutes
`of limitations for each cause of action alleged; and
`
`Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in
`the States of Montana, Maine, Wyoming, Idaho,
`West Virginia, Kansas, Iowa, and Utah who
`purchased
`the Product during
`the statutes of
`limitations for each cause of action alleged.
`
`68. Common questions of issues, law, and fact predominate and include whether
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 11 of 17
`
`Defendant’s representations and actions were and are misleading and unlawful and if Plaintiff and
`
`class members are entitled to damages.
`
`69. Plaintiff's claims and basis for relief are typical to other members because all were
`
`subjected to the same unfair, misleading, and deceptive representations, omissions, and actions.
`
`70. Plaintiff is an adequate representative because his interests do not conflict with other
`
`members.
`
`71. No individual inquiry is necessary since the focus is only on Defendant’s practices
`
`and the class is definable and ascertainable.
`
`72.
`
`Individual actions would risk inconsistent results, be repetitive and are impractical
`
`to justify, as the claims are modest relative to the scope of the harm.
`
`73. Plaintiff's counsel is competent and experienced in complex class action litigation
`
`and intends to protect class members’ interests adequately and fairly.
`
`74. Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief because the practices continue.
`
`New York General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 & 350
`
`(Consumer Protection Statute)
`
`75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`76. Plaintiff believed a program described with the term, “Rewards,” would provide a
`
`thing of value, and that the Program was operated in compliance with this State’s laws, which are
`
`intended to prevent customers from ending up with significant quantities of non-redeemable
`
`reward codes with no value.
`
`77. Defendant’s false, misleading, unlawful and deceptive representations and omissions
`
`are material in that they are likely to influence consumer purchasing decisions.
`
`78. Defendant misrepresented the Rewards Program through statements, omissions,
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 12 of 17
`
`ambiguities, half-truths and/or actions.
`
`79. Defendant violated GBL §§ 570 et seq., established by the State Legislature to
`
`prevent companies from misleading consumers with respect to programs which are based on
`
`redeemable items such as the caps containing alphanumeric codes.
`
`80. Plaintiff relied on the representations and omissions to believe a program described
`
`with the term, “Rewards,” would provide a thing of value, and that the Program was operated in
`
`compliance with this State’s laws, which are intended to prevent customers from ending up with
`
`significant quantities of non-redeemable reward codes with no value.
`
`81.
`
` Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products to participate in the Rewards
`
`Program or paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
` Violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts
`
`(On Behalf of the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class)
`
`82. The Consumer Fraud Acts of the States in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class are
`
`similar to the consumer protection statute invoked by Plaintiff and prohibit the use of unfair or
`
`deceptive business practices in the conduct of commerce.
`
`83. The members of the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class reserve their rights to assert
`
`their consumer protection claims under the Consumer Fraud Acts of the States they represent
`
`and/or the consumer protection statute invoked by Plaintiff.
`
`84. Defendant intended that members of the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class would
`
`rely upon its deceptive conduct.
`
`85. As a result of Defendant’s use of artifice, and unfair or deceptive acts or business
`
`practices, the members of the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class sustained damages.
`
`86. Defendant’s conduct showed motive and a reckless disregard of the truth such that
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 13 of 17
`
`an award of punitive damages is appropriate.
`
`Breaches of Express Warranty,
`Implied Warranty of Merchantability/Fitness for a Particular Purpose
`and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.
`
`
`87. The Rewards Program was created, identified, marketed and promoted by Defendant
`
`and expressly and impliedly warranted to Plaintiff that a program described with the term,
`
`“Rewards,” would provide a thing of value, and that the Program was operated in compliance with
`
`this State’s laws, which are intended to prevent customers from ending up with significant
`
`quantities of non-redeemable reward codes with no value.
`
`88. Defendant directly marketed the Products and accompanying Rewards Program to
`
`Plaintiff through its advertisements and marketing, through various forms of media, on the
`
`packaging, in print circulars, direct mail, product descriptions distributed to resellers, and targeted
`
`digital advertising.
`
`89. Defendant knew the attributes of a rewards program that customers like Plaintiff
`
`were seeking and developed its marketing and labeling to directly meet those needs and desires.
`
`90. Defendant’s representations about the rewards program were conveyed in writing
`
`and promised it would be defect-free, and Plaintiff understood this meant that a program described
`
`with the term, “Rewards,” would provide a thing of value, and that the Program was operated in
`
`compliance with this State’s laws, which are intended to prevent customers from ending up with
`
`significant quantities of non-redeemable reward codes with no value.
`
`91. Defendant’s representations affirmed and promised that a program described with
`
`the term, “Rewards,” would provide a thing of value, and that the Program was operated in
`
`compliance with this State’s laws, which are intended to prevent customers from ending up with
`
`significant quantities of non-redeemable reward codes with no value.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 14 of 17
`
`92. Defendant described the Rewards program so Plaintiff believed a program described
`
`with the term, “Rewards,” would provide a thing of value, and that the Program was operated in
`
`compliance with this State’s laws, which are intended to prevent customers from ending up with
`
`significant quantities of non-redeemable reward codes with no value, which became part of the
`
`basis of the bargain that it would conform to its affirmations and promises.
`
`93. Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide non-deceptive descriptions and
`
`marketing of the Products to participate in the Rewards Program.
`
`94. This duty is based on its outsized role in the market for carbonated beverages, a
`
`trusted company, known for its transparent labeling, and its commitment to putting customers first.
`
`95. Plaintiff recently became aware of Defendant’s breach of the Product’s warranties.
`
`96. Plaintiff provided or will provide notice to Defendant, its agents, representatives,
`
`retailers, and their employees.
`
`97. Plaintiff hereby provides notice to Defendant that it breached the express and implied
`
`warranties associated with the Product.
`
`98. Defendant received notice and should have been aware of these issues due to
`
`complaints by third-parties, including regulators, competitors, and consumers, to its main offices,
`
`and by consumers through online forums.
`
`99. The Rewards Program did not conform to its affirmations of fact and promises due
`
`to Defendant’s actions.
`
`100. The Rewards Program and the rewards it provided were not merchantable because
`
`they were not fit to pass in the trade as advertised, not fit for the ordinary purpose for which they
`
`were intended and did not conform to their promises or affirmations of fact made on the packaging,
`
`container or label, website, and elsewhere, because it was marketed as if a program described with
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 15 of 17
`
`the term, “Rewards,” would provide a thing of value, and that the Program was operated in
`
`compliance with this State’s laws, which are intended to prevent customers from ending up with
`
`significant quantities of non-redeemable reward codes with no value.
`
`101. The Product was not merchantable because Defendant had reason to know the
`
`particular purpose for which the Product was bought by Plaintiff, because he expected a program
`
`described with the term, “Rewards,” would provide a thing of value, and that the Program was
`
`operated in compliance with this State’s laws, which are intended to prevent customers from
`
`ending up with significant quantities of non-redeemable reward codes with no value, and he relied
`
`on Defendant’s skill and judgment to select or furnish such a suitable program, based on qualities
`
`and attributes such as providing some tangible bonus beyond purchasing of the Products.
`
`102. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products to participate in the Rewards
`
`Program or paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`Negligent Misrepresentation
`
`103. Defendant had a duty to truthfully represent the Rewards Program, which it breached.
`
`104. This duty was non-delegable, based on Defendant’s position, holding itself out as
`
`having special knowledge and experience in this area, a trusted company, known for its transparent
`
`labeling, and its commitment to putting customers first.
`
`105. Defendant’s representations and omissions regarding the Rewards Program went
`
`beyond the specific representations on the packaging, as they incorporated the extra-labeling
`
`promises and commitments to quality, transparency and putting customers first, that it has been
`
`known for.
`
`106. These promises were outside of the standard representations that other companies
`
`may make in a standard arms-length, retail context.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 16 of 17
`
`107. The representations took advantage of consumers’ cognitive shortcuts made at the
`
`point-of-sale and their trust in Defendant.
`
`108. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on these negligent misrepresentations and
`
`omissions, which served to induce and did induce, his purchase of the Products to participate in
`
`the Rewards Program.
`
`109. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products to participate in the Rewards
`
`Program or paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`Fraud
`
`110. Defendant misrepresented and/or omitted the attributes and qualities of the Products
`
`to participate in the Rewards Program, and expected a program described with the term,
`
`“Rewards,” would provide a thing of value, and that the Program was operated in compliance with
`
`this State’s laws, which are intended to prevent customers from ending up with significant
`
`quantities of non-redeemable reward codes with no value.
`
`111. Moreover, the records Defendant is required to maintain, and/or the information
`
`inconspicuously disclosed to consumers, provided it with actual and constructive knowledge of
`
`the falsity and deception, through statements and omissions.
`
`112. Defendant knew of the issues described here yet did not address them.
`
`113. Defendant’s fraudulent intent is evinced by its knowledge that the Rewards Program
`
`was not consistent with its representations and expectations.
`
`Unjust Enrichment
`
`114. Defendant obtained benefits and monies because the Rewards Program was not as
`
`represented and expected, to the detriment and impoverishment of Plaintiff and class members,
`
`who seek restitution, statutory penalties and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00430-WMS Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jury Demand and Prayer for Relief
`
`Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues.
`
` WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment:
`
`1. Declaring this a proper class action, certifying Plaintiff as representative and the
`
`undersigned as counsel for the class;
`
`2. Entering preliminary and permanent injunctive relief by directing Defendant to correct the
`
`challenged practices to comply with the law;
`
`3. Injunctive relief to remove, correct and/or refrain from the challenged practices and
`
`representations, and restitution and disgorgement for members of the class pursuant to the
`
`applicable laws;
`
`4. Awarding monetary damages, statutory and/or punitive damages pursuant to any statutory
`
`claims and interest pursuant to the common law and other statutory claims;
`
`5. Awarding costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for Plaintiff's attorneys and
`
`experts; and
`
`6. Other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: June 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Spencer Sheehan
`Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
`Spencer Sheehan
`60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
`Great Neck NY 11021
`Tel: (516) 268-7080
`spencer@spencersheehan.com
`
`
`17
`
`